 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
April 2004 | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
The Big Conversation | |
 Back to contents | ||
|
|
|||||
|
|
The Food Standards Agency is four-years-old this month and is currently putting together its strategy for the next five years. So this month EHJ has handed over these five pages to the profession to see how you think the agency has performed and what changes you would like to see take place. All 33 of the CIEH food groups were asked for their opinion while EHPs were invited to put forward their views via EHCnet. In general, the profession believes that the FSA is doing a good job and has been successful in raising the profile of food safety over the last few years by providing a focus for food issues. The imported food division comes in for particular praise at a time when port health is facing increasing pressure, following the foot and mouth outbreak. However, there are recurring criticisms of the FSA. The most common is its failure to recognise the work being done through local enforcement, particularly in its dealings with the press. EHPs feel there is a tendency for the FSA to claim credit, rather than see local authorities as a partner, also deserving of recognition. Some believe that this is creating unnecessary barriers with local government. Food hazard warnings are seen as too frequent and taking up precious resources. There are calls for the FSA to distinguish between recurring threats, such as Sudan red, and new hazards. EHPs also feel that the FSA should respond more quickly to requests for information and guidance, which FSA staff often fail to recognise are time-sensitive. FSA training on subjects like food imports and cheese making are seen as being of a high standard, creating a demand for more training of a similar quality in other areas of enforcement. As for the future, the plea from EHPs is for the FSA to be less paternalistic and to acknowledge its own mistakes. The current debate about the accuracy of returns was cited as an example of the FSA failing to accept the part it played in the system breaking down. Below are a sample of responses representative of those received, along with a comment from the CIEH. The responses have been edited, only to avoid repetition. YOUR VIEWS: "The FSA's remit to tackle food safety from farm to fork
is certainly the best approach. The public also sees this as the
correct agenda. Where the FSA might fall down is in trying to map
this agenda onto existing, mainly local government networks. You
must have sympathy with any agency seeking consistency of resource
allocation and quality of enforcement across at least four tiers
of local government and two professions. Also, who is able to act
on the nutrition and obesity debate? There is no real coordinated
infrastructure in the UK to match the voice of commerce. That being
said the FSA has scored a couple of own goals. Their software programmes
covering local authority monitoring data and their obsession with
Sudan red food hazard warnings are seen by some as weaknesses." "The FSA should be congratulated for raising the profile of
food safety over recent years, particularly with the release of
the television advertisements aimed at the catering sector last
year. It also offers more support to environmental heath departments
than its predecessor. But its response to technical questions could
be more prompt and decisive. There is, for example, a need for greater
clarification over authorisation under the European Communities
Act. This is one area where communication between the FSA and Lacors
needs to be improved. The FSA could also provide more help with
resourcing problems faced by local authorities. The large number
of food hazard warnings issued is a strain due to the time taken
to draft press releases and contact businesses. Would it be possible
for the FSA to put pressure on companies to issue press releases?
We feel the FSA reporting and monitoring regime limits the resources
local authorities can direct to premises that they feel are most
in need. This also reduces local authorities' flexibility and prevents
the best use of resources. On the positive side, the standard of
publications aimed at food businesses is high and easy to understand.
The distribution of information directly to food businesses is welcomed.
The FSA website is continually improving, but there is still work
to be done to make the website more user friendly to enforcement
officers." "There is a question as to whether the inspection regime
is sustainable. Apart from the obvious veiled threat of an FSA audit,
the whole thing is a source of considerable stress for all involved.
It is true that we get fewer bad premises because we inspect more
regularly. But the main problem is people with no food safety skills
wanting to operate food businesses - something we have little control
over. On the good side, the web information is very useful, with
procedures and policy clearer than they used to be. It is, however,
frustrating and difficult having to interpret obscure EU legislation
for small-time operators. This is one area where things could improve.
We are happier with some of the guidance documents the FSA produces
although they have a long way to go to catch up with the presentation
of the HSE guidance. The framework agreement was a monster but there
was nothing in there that we shouldn't already have been doing.
The FSA should be more sympathetic to smaller authorities where
EHPs are generalists. In some authorities there are just two EHPs
providing the workforce of less than one full-time equivalent on
food." "Here at the Hull and Goole Port Health Authority we have
a very good working relationship with the relatively new imported
food division of the FSA. Many of the staff in the division are
ex-port health officers and so are very knowledgeable and give valuable
assistance and advice. The profile of imported food control has
never been higher following the foot and mouth epidemic in 2001.
The FSA is leading in the government's demands for a 'step change'
in import controls. We have also been subject to a rigorous imported
food audit last December, based on the framework agreement. I found
the process to be challenging but fair, with a great deal of support
from the agency. The FSA has been instrumental in securing valuable
extra government funding for imported food sampling. They have also
given commitment to providing low-cost or no-cost officer training.
Together with the Association of Port Health Authorities, the FSA
has proved to be an effective and welcome organisation. I hope that
they will maintain the momentum." "Clearly both the public and EHPs have benefited from the
existence of the FSA. The framework agreement alone has really improved
the lot of the lead food control officer. The FSA has, controversially,
spent a lot of money to promote itself as well as food issues. In
my view, however, it should have listened to EHP liaison groups
about how to use some of the money more wisely. For instance, the
FSA has never really coordinated its main hygiene campaign with
the work of all local authorities. Targeted back-up activity would
have given considerably more emphasis to the food safety messages.
In fact, the FSA hardly ever mentions, let alone promotes, the work
of EHPs despite surveys that confirm that most businesses gain all
of their food safety knowledge from EHPs. For all its talk about
the importance of partnerships, the FSA has failed to be a coordinated
partner of local authority officers. At the enforcement stakeholder
forum last December, FSA chief executive Dr Jon Bell said he recognised
this to be a problem and confirmed that the FSA would rectify the
problem. I wait with interest to see whether there are reports of
success at future meetings." "The creation of the FSA has been a good thing. However,
the agency's role is too skewed toward exposing the perceived weaknesses
of local food authorities, rather than being a support. While poor
practice should be exposed, it is also necessary to provide appropriate
praise and support. The FSA is guilty of having become an ivory
tower. It has lost a great deal of face with those who enforce food
safety law as a result. We would like to see a genuine shift in
attitude from auditor, namer and shamer to valued partner. There
should be more consultation with EHPs. Possibly representatives
from the FSA could attend regional food study group meetings. There
should be more cross secondment between environmental health and
the FSA to see how the other half works. The CIEH should also play
a stronger role in defending local authorities who are constantly
under political and financial pressure, rather than seemingly chastising
them in chorus with the FSA."
"The FSA has responded swiftly and constructively to the government's
'step change' initiative on imported food controls. But it needs
to ensure resources are available to implement all EU legislation,
which needs to be interpreted pragmatically, focusing on risk. The
order that enables enforcement of food hygiene legislation aboard
ships and aircraft is to be welcomed, and with proper guidance this
will offer greater protection to travellers and crews. On the negative
side, the dilatory way that atypical DSP in shellfish has been handled
has caused major problems for food authorities. We can but hope
that the FSA will learn from this debacle. The agency has also failed
to respond to growing evidence that salmonella in Spanish eggs is
a significant public health issue. There is still a need for the
agency to coordinate efforts between its divisions more effectively
and also for the ongoing turf war with Defra to be resolved once
and for all." "The FSA should be congratulated on raising the profile of
food safety issues, imported foods, initiating national food safety
campaigns and providing funds for low cost training for enforcers.
However, enforcers do find advice given by the FSA on enforcement
issues often nebulous and impractical. Enforcement advice should
be clearer, with the FSA providing models and examples of best practice."
"Publicly, the FSA appears to give little credit to local
authorities for their efforts in food law enforcement while being
only too quick to sing its own praises. Clearly some enforcement
authorities are better managed than others. Those that underperform
need to be brought up to speed. But if the FSA was prepared to more
openly acknowledge the positive contributions made by local authorities,
I, and many of my colleagues might see it in a better light. On
the plus side, the FSA's strategy for reducing reported incidences
of food poisonings and foodborne disease appears to be working,
or at least that's what the figures are indicating." "The FSA needs to take a lead role in tackling the causes
of obesity and long-term ill health from poor diet, working more
closely with industry and improving labelling. It also needs to
address the reported rise in allergies and food intolerance, with
consumers being better able to identify foods that may cause a reaction.
The agency should also do more research into detecting GM in foods.
The need for traditional meat inspections should be looked at without
handing control to the industry." "Members of the east of England small ports network have
benefited from the expertise and positive 'can do' approach of the
FSA's imported food division. Unfortunately, when contacting the
FSA with urgent requests for information, sometimes responses are
not within the tight deadlines that ports have to operate to. The
FSA also moves staff about, which is frustrating for authorities
who, having obtained the name of a knowledgeable contact, find the
person has moved on. We hope that these issues may be resolved by
the FSA establishing a single enquiry point on imported food issues
with a faster response time. Overall, the imported food division
is helping to improve recognition of small ports and continues to
help us improve service delivery." "The FSA is more open and provides a focus for food-related issues. But staff produce guidance that makes unrealistic demands on small- to medium-sized enterprises. An example is documented Haccp for a local sweet shop. Information seems to be sent out from an 'ivory tower' and is divorced from reality. The FSA is also too focused on larger business, resulting in a 'big business bias' on the development of food safety guidance. Councils work on added value issues such as advice and training, which does not appear to be adequately recognised. Recommendations for the future are:
- Dorset food group
|
|
|||
